[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14479

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:18-cr-80075-RLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM AELLIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(November 15, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-14479 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

William Aellis appeals his 97-month sentence for one count of distribution 

of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1). Aellis 

contends the Government breached its obligation in his plea agreement to 

recommend a five-year sentence by offering evidence at the sentencing hearing 

which it reasonably knew would cause the sentencing court to impose a longer 

sentence. After review,1 we affirm the district court.

There is no limitation placed upon the information that a district court may 

receive for sentencing purposes concerning the background, character, and conduct 

of a person convicted of a federal offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3661. The Supreme Court 

has noted that, at sentencing, a district court has broad discretion to consider the 

fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics. 

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 480 (2011).

The Government did not breach Aellis’s plea agreement. Contrary to 

Aellis’s assertion, the Government did not agree to “advocate” for a five-year 

sentence on Aellis’s behalf—instead, it agreed to “recommend” a five-year 

sentence to the court. See United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th 

Cir. 2004) (stating to determine whether the government breached a plea 

1 Whether the government has breached a plea agreement is reviewed de novo. United 

States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court’s factual 

findings on the scope of the agreement will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1105 (11th Cir. 2004).

Case: 18-14479 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

agreement, the court must determine the scope of the government’s promises). 

The Government met this promise by explicitly recommending a five-year 

sentence at sentencing. Moreover, in the plea agreement, the Government 

expressly reserved the right to inform the court of all facts pertinent to the 

sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the offenses 

committed, whether charged or not, as well as concerning Aellis and his 

background. The plea agreement also alerted Aellis the district court would be 

required to calculate and consider his Guidelines range and could impose a 

sentence of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Aellis testified at his plea colloquy that 

he understood the plea agreement was not binding on the district court and that it 

could impose a higher sentence. Based on the foregoing, Aellis could not have 

reasonably believed the Government breached its obligation to “recommend” a 

five-year sentence by offering testimony about Aellis’s background and then 

unambiguously recommending a five-year sentence. See United States v. Rewis, 

969 F.2d 985, 988 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating a plea agreement is analyzed according 

to the defendant’s reasonable understanding in entering into the plea agreement).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-14479 Date Filed: 11/15/2019 Page: 3 of 3